linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] dt-bindings: msm: dsi-controller-main: Add compatible strings for every current SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 13:29:52 +0000
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        robdclark@...il.com, quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        quic_mkrishn@...cinc.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] dt-bindings: msm: dsi-controller-main: Add
 compatible strings for every current SoC

On 08/11/2022 12:46, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 08/11/2022 02:56, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> Currently we do not differentiate between the various users of the
>> qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl. The driver is flexible enough to operate from one
>> compatible string but, the hardware does have some significant 
>> differences
>> in the number of clocks.
>>
>> To facilitate documenting the clocks add the following compatible strings
>>
>> - qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl-apq8064
> 
> Generic comment: I think we'd better follow the arm/qcom-soc.yaml and 
> use qcom,soc-something as compat string. This would leave us with 
> qcom,apq8064-dsi-ctrl
> 
> I'm not sure if we want to follow the qcm2290 approach and encode the 
> DSI ctrl revision here (6g vs v2).

For qcm2290 I'm thinking qcm2290-dsi-ctrl - without the 6g piece.

a) Nobody is using the compat at the moment
b) I'm not sure what - if any real information the silicon version
    number conveys here.

+ Loic, Shawn

---
bod